Americans of Eastern European extraction have long been cultivated for their political support. In the 1950s and later, Congress regularly passed resolutions condemning Soviet occupation of the "Captive Nations." [I used to dismiss such acts as political theater until I had the chance to visit newly independent Lithuania and Estonia. I concluded their freedom was worth pressing for.]
So when Mitt Romney decided to include Poland on his campaign tour, I thought it made political sense. Poles are anti-Russian [as Romney certainly seems to be], strongly Catholic, and culturally conservative.
What I didn't know until I saw this piece was how much Lech Walesa has intervened in U.S. politics in recent years --not only criticizing Obama but even traveling to Illinois to campaign for a Tea Party candidate. Walesa was a hero of Solidarity and now is diminishing his stature by such blatant involvement in American politics.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
oversight vs. fishing
I'm a strong advocate of vigorous congressional oversight of our military and intelligence operations. That's why I was pleased recently to read of the degree of oversight of our drone operations.
What's happening now, however, strikes me more as a fishing expedition, demanding highly classified internal documents in order to play lawyer games. Republican Senators are pushing legislation to demand release of the Justice Department's legal memos on the constitutionality of the drone strikes. They have the eye-catching phrase of wanting to see "Obama;s license to kill."
I wouldn't mind seeing it, too, but this is not the sword to fall on. Congress needs to watch the policy in practice, not the legal theory behind it. As we've learned from John Roberts, skilled lawyers canmake the Constitution say almost anything.
What's happening now, however, strikes me more as a fishing expedition, demanding highly classified internal documents in order to play lawyer games. Republican Senators are pushing legislation to demand release of the Justice Department's legal memos on the constitutionality of the drone strikes. They have the eye-catching phrase of wanting to see "Obama;s license to kill."
I wouldn't mind seeing it, too, but this is not the sword to fall on. Congress needs to watch the policy in practice, not the legal theory behind it. As we've learned from John Roberts, skilled lawyers canmake the Constitution say almost anything.
deterrence by leaks
Congress and the Obama administration are in a renewed dither over leaks of classified information. The Senate is even considering a bill to forbid anonymous briefings for journalists except by a few top officials. Lots of luck!
There are too many reasons for leaks for them to be banned. Some are trial balloons. Some are whistleblower disclosures that we on the outside deserve to know. Some are political puffery, either with the favored journalists or with the broader public. And some, pretty few in fact, are damaging revelations of military or intelligence operational details.
Last week, reporters were told that the National Security Adviser, Tom Donilon, had briefed Israeli officials about U.S. military planning for possible conflict with Iran. I take that as an effort to reassure people in both countries on the seriousness of U.S. determination to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons -- and to persuade Israel to calm down and wait for the ever tougher sanctions to bite. No doubt it also had domestic political benefits in America, but I believe that was a collateral effect, not the reason for the disclosure.
A harder case to assess is today's New York Times piece about Pakistan. The thrust of the article is that American and Pakistani differences over how to deal with the Haqqani network could lead to a rupture in relations. But it also mentions that Haqqani suicide bombers seem determined to inflict mass casualties on U.S. personnel in Afghanistan, and have come perilously close. It then says that U.S. officials have met to consider contingency responses in case a mass attack succeeds.
There are too many reasons for leaks for them to be banned. Some are trial balloons. Some are whistleblower disclosures that we on the outside deserve to know. Some are political puffery, either with the favored journalists or with the broader public. And some, pretty few in fact, are damaging revelations of military or intelligence operational details.
Last week, reporters were told that the National Security Adviser, Tom Donilon, had briefed Israeli officials about U.S. military planning for possible conflict with Iran. I take that as an effort to reassure people in both countries on the seriousness of U.S. determination to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons -- and to persuade Israel to calm down and wait for the ever tougher sanctions to bite. No doubt it also had domestic political benefits in America, but I believe that was a collateral effect, not the reason for the disclosure.
A harder case to assess is today's New York Times piece about Pakistan. The thrust of the article is that American and Pakistani differences over how to deal with the Haqqani network could lead to a rupture in relations. But it also mentions that Haqqani suicide bombers seem determined to inflict mass casualties on U.S. personnel in Afghanistan, and have come perilously close. It then says that U.S. officials have met to consider contingency responses in case a mass attack succeeds.
The meetings yielded a list of about 30 possible responses, according to a senior official who was briefed on the deliberations — everything from withdrawing the Islamabad ambassador, to a flurry of intensified drone attacks on Haqqani targets in Pakistan’s tribal belt, to American or Afghan commando raids on Haqqani hide-outs in the same area.One possible reason for this leak is to remind the Pakistanis that, if they don't launched their often promised and often delayed operations against Haqqani, the U.S. would take unilateral actions that, like the Bin Laden raid, would greatly embarrass the security services. If so, that could be a justifiable reason for the leaks.
and you thought Congress wasn't worth it!
Whatever your complaints about the U.S. Congress, withhold them for a moment to consider the regional assembly in Sicily. Spiegel reports:
The problem isn't just that they receive a monthly net salary of €10,000 to €15,000 [$12-18,000] -- more than members of the national assembly in Rome get -- without working terribly hard. The assembly rarely convenes and the turnout is usually quite low. Even the fact that almost a third of the Honorables have a criminal record, are being sued or are under investigation is a cosmetic blemish at most. The true problem lies in what they have been doing: The political class in semi-autonomous Sicily has been doling out jobs and cash so lavishly over the years that the region is at risk of financial collapse.We're not there yet. Not even close.
punctuated politics
In the good old days, The Wall Street Journal [note the capitalized article!] used to run a center column story that was offbeat, fun, clever, not newsworthy in a political or economic sense, but well worth reading. Many of the stories were picked up by network television news. The Journal still runs such stories occasionally at the bottom of the front page.
Today's piece reports the fight in the Obama campaign over its slogan: "Forward." Should the slogan have a period, or does that suggest no place to go? Should it have an ellipsis [...]? Or a Soviet-style exclamation point? This is what the folks in Chicago are reportedly fighting about.
At least the story has some historical background on how other campaigns punctuated their signature campaign slogans. Interesting reading.
This is not a Romney problem because his slogan, "Believe in America," has no punctuation. I guess it's not an order.
Today's piece reports the fight in the Obama campaign over its slogan: "Forward." Should the slogan have a period, or does that suggest no place to go? Should it have an ellipsis [...]? Or a Soviet-style exclamation point? This is what the folks in Chicago are reportedly fighting about.
At least the story has some historical background on how other campaigns punctuated their signature campaign slogans. Interesting reading.
This is not a Romney problem because his slogan, "Believe in America," has no punctuation. I guess it's not an order.
Monday, July 30, 2012
politics then and now
I was interviewed last week about the Lavelle affair, and it made me realize how differently political controversies were handled then compared with now.
In early 1972, I was working for Senator Harold Hughes, Democrat of Iowa, who was determined to force a end to the Vietnam war. He also was working hard to prevent the reelection of President Richard Nixon. Our office received a letter from an Iowan serving in the Air Force and based in Thailand, Sgt. Lonnie Franks. The letter said that he was ordered to falsify after-action reports on air strikes inside North Vietnam, that his immediate supervisor said "the president probably doesn't even know about it," and he wondered whether it was "legal and proper" for falsify classified reports.
Did Senator Hughes rush to the cameras and denounce the unauthorized attacks on North Vietnam? Did he leak the letter to the New York Times so the news media could trumpet the story? Isn't that what you'd expect today?
But no, Hughes discussed the issue with a trusted colleague, then sent the letter -- after concealing the name of the author and other identifying details -- to the Secretary of the Air Force, who promised to investigate.
The investigation revealed a pattern of violation of written orders setting the rules of engagement for attacks in North Vietnam. It also revealed that Lavelle had ordered his subordinates not to report that they had acted contrary to orders, and that as a result a system of falsifying classified reports was established. Lonnie Franks later testified that the 200 people at his base often had to spend up to three hours a night "making the wrong right" -- that is, concocting false reports that had all the necessary details so that they looked legitimate.
The Air Force Chief of Staff recalled Lavelle and relieved him of command. Senator Hughes was told that the problem had been fixed. The Nixon Administration, however, issued a false statement that Lavelle had retired for health reasons.
Some congressional conservatives who were critical of any restraints on U.S. bombing complained that Lavelle had been mistreated -- and the House Armed Services Committee held a hearing where Lavelle accepted responsibility for the false reports but said he didn't know about them.
Only then, when the issue was public and the facts were being distorted, did Senator Hughes make a public statement. Moreover, he secured a commitment from Chairman John Stennis to investigate the whole matter. Our five month investigation was followed by nine days of hearings, at which everyone above Lavelle in the chain of command said that he had violated orders. Republican Senator Barry Goldwater said that Lavelle "cannot be defended." In an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 12-2, the Committee denied Lavelle a promotion on the retired list.
Senators and the Armed Services Committee conducted themselves as statesmen, not politicians. They saw the issue as one of integrity and civilian control, not whether the war was good or bad.
I haven't seen much evidence of similar statesmanship in recent years.
In early 1972, I was working for Senator Harold Hughes, Democrat of Iowa, who was determined to force a end to the Vietnam war. He also was working hard to prevent the reelection of President Richard Nixon. Our office received a letter from an Iowan serving in the Air Force and based in Thailand, Sgt. Lonnie Franks. The letter said that he was ordered to falsify after-action reports on air strikes inside North Vietnam, that his immediate supervisor said "the president probably doesn't even know about it," and he wondered whether it was "legal and proper" for falsify classified reports.
Did Senator Hughes rush to the cameras and denounce the unauthorized attacks on North Vietnam? Did he leak the letter to the New York Times so the news media could trumpet the story? Isn't that what you'd expect today?
But no, Hughes discussed the issue with a trusted colleague, then sent the letter -- after concealing the name of the author and other identifying details -- to the Secretary of the Air Force, who promised to investigate.
The investigation revealed a pattern of violation of written orders setting the rules of engagement for attacks in North Vietnam. It also revealed that Lavelle had ordered his subordinates not to report that they had acted contrary to orders, and that as a result a system of falsifying classified reports was established. Lonnie Franks later testified that the 200 people at his base often had to spend up to three hours a night "making the wrong right" -- that is, concocting false reports that had all the necessary details so that they looked legitimate.
The Air Force Chief of Staff recalled Lavelle and relieved him of command. Senator Hughes was told that the problem had been fixed. The Nixon Administration, however, issued a false statement that Lavelle had retired for health reasons.
Some congressional conservatives who were critical of any restraints on U.S. bombing complained that Lavelle had been mistreated -- and the House Armed Services Committee held a hearing where Lavelle accepted responsibility for the false reports but said he didn't know about them.
Only then, when the issue was public and the facts were being distorted, did Senator Hughes make a public statement. Moreover, he secured a commitment from Chairman John Stennis to investigate the whole matter. Our five month investigation was followed by nine days of hearings, at which everyone above Lavelle in the chain of command said that he had violated orders. Republican Senator Barry Goldwater said that Lavelle "cannot be defended." In an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 12-2, the Committee denied Lavelle a promotion on the retired list.
Senators and the Armed Services Committee conducted themselves as statesmen, not politicians. They saw the issue as one of integrity and civilian control, not whether the war was good or bad.
I haven't seen much evidence of similar statesmanship in recent years.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
what numbers count?
I've raised doubts before of the wisdom of letting schoolkids use calculators rather than learning how to do arithmetic tasks like long division, but now I'm willing to consider a radical change in the other direction -- dropping the requirement that all high school or college graduates need advanced mathematics like algebra and calculus. A thoughtful opinion piece in the New York Times by a political science professor, Andrew Hacker, makes the case.
Hacker notes that failure in math classes correlates with failure to graduate from high school and later college. In effect, we are creating an insurmountable barrier for otherwise educable young people.
I want to hear more on the idea, for it sounds plausible, especially since Hacker still calls for numeracy, for schoolkids to learn how to handle finances and understand public policy issues expressed with statistics and other numbers. He argues that higher math just isn't necessary for ordinary functions and jobs of most citizens. I agree with the need to require numeracy, but wonder how much most of us need.
Hacker notes that failure in math classes correlates with failure to graduate from high school and later college. In effect, we are creating an insurmountable barrier for otherwise educable young people.
I want to hear more on the idea, for it sounds plausible, especially since Hacker still calls for numeracy, for schoolkids to learn how to handle finances and understand public policy issues expressed with statistics and other numbers. He argues that higher math just isn't necessary for ordinary functions and jobs of most citizens. I agree with the need to require numeracy, but wonder how much most of us need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)